OPP Newsletter

user1092

Oh, thank God for this paragraph.

I was getting worried there for a bit while reading this article. It sounded like it could be authentic... and scary. But the part about Marxist takeover pretty much discredited the whole thing.

Why would the top 0.01% want to change the system that makes them the top 0.01% in the first place?

Government wanting more power and less opposition makes sense. That's just the nature of the government. Any government. But the whole Marxist thing was a bit too much in this fiction piece. I think the author just got carried away and overdid it a bit with the drama.

The Dutchman

The national news yesterday showed him saying it from his hotel in Hong Kong but maybe the media just dubbed his voice in to make it look like he said it Eh? Huh? Huh?

Yankee Clipper

The Dutchman

KG wrote:
Oh, thank God for this paragraph.

Yankee C. wrote:
I would sit down and start connecting the dots before I wrote this off as fiction. It doesn't worry or scare me, but I am smart enough to be concerned.

Which is quite obvious it isn't!

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

How about applying these words from that outstanding Democrat Congresswoman from California to this story? Then you can tell us whether either of them is fiction or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s

irondoor827

how true :lol:

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Maybe you need to read the words of Maxine Waters she put on Roland Martin just after the last coronation of Barack Obama. Evidently you haven't availed yourself of the opportunity up to now. Here it is again, just for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s

The Dutchman

screendoor827 wrote:
how true



I doubt it can read very well but most likely has all of her words on a cd and listens to them in the form of a night time lullaby....

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I don't think it will listen any better than it could have read. LOL

The Dutchman

The Dutchman wrote:
screendoor827 wrote:
how true


I doubt it can read very well but most likely has all of her words on a cd and listens to them in the form of a night time lullaby....



:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I love the cartoon about what is left when Obama is redacted.

user1092

I don't think you guys understand what Marxism is.

And I think either the author of that article also has no clue or he does have a clue but assumes that his readers don't. (Which seems to be the correct assumption, at least based on your replies.) So he uses a scary word for dramatic effect even though it makes no sense in the context.

Here is Karl Marx's (misguided) explanation for the need of the tyranny in a nutshell:

There is the rich elite and then there are the poor masses. We need to take from the rich and give to the poor to create a better society. The rich, obviously, won't give up their riches voluntarily. Therefore, we need to use force to take from them. This is what the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on.

Now tell me, why would the owners of Ford, McDonalds, IBM, Chase, etc. ( you know, the people who pay for the presidential campaigns, run the congress, and pretty much own the country) would ever want to see themselves in a situation when they are being forced to give up what they have under the tyranny of the poor? And it's not just the super-rich who would be targeted. That includes the politicians on both sides who are millionaires (pretty much all of them). And their successful friends and family members. Why would they want that? The hit list of a typical Marxist would contain Obama himself (and Pelosi and pretty much every other democratic leader out there).

So the whole Marxism reference doesn't make any sense. Which leads me to believe that the whole article is fiction.

The author should have stopped at this: "It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list."

This is believable. The government breaking laws and moral boundaries to squash dissent is believable. It happens all the time. Obama does it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Bush did it. And so on. And whoever else comes after Obama will be doing it too. And it's getting worse.

But none of them will ever do anything that might turn themselves (and all their donors) into the repressed class.

There are different types of and causes for tyrannies. And we might see tyranny in the US someday. But it will most definitely not be based on the Marxist values.

The ending of the article is the conservative equivalent of the "Oh my God, Obama is going to pay my gas bill" stupidity seen on the left. And such stupidity hurts the conservatives.

rumitoid

OMG, a voice of reason...and intelligence. So nice to meet you, KG.

The Push for the Patriot Act (talk about irony) after 9/11 was part of the Cheney agenda, but of course it would not have passed without Democrat votes. What was done under Bush, a scandal revealed toward the end of his presidency, was the illegal compilation of files on Americans. When FISA passed in 2008, much of it was made "legal" and the terms included in that bill that had a more limited approach, without the parameters being clearly outlined, were re-defined in broader terms.